BATTLE OF THE NIGHT FIGHTERS

[gruad]

I do believe that when Northrop got the original specification the p61 was supposed to be a bomber interceptor.

So the original 4 50s on a turret mounted above would have made sense at the time for carrying out bomber interceptions

AKA Schrake Musik Which the Germans actually developed as we know

Open to any discussions on this Thanks guys

 

[Snautzer01]

Hi, you could read this. The first Night Fighter. P-61 Black Widow

 

[MIflyer]

I read that the original design of the P-61 was based on defending against the London night Blitz. The airplane could put down its flaps and cruise over London all night. But when Japanese bombers were hitting Saipan at night the P-61's were found to be inadequate and had to be replaced by F6F night fighters, The question is, why could the P-61's not hang around at altitude and wait for the bombers to show up. Admittedly the original zap flaps were not adopted in the production models, so perhaps the P-61 could not hang some drop tanks on, pull back the throttles, and stooge around all night.

 

[Snautzer01]

Think you would like to read the link i gave. Dana Bell has a few things to say about performance of the P-61.

 

[PAT303]

Yeah if a P-61 is able to beat a single-engine fighter I don't think the pilot of the latter was using the proper technique -- to put it mildly.

re: strictly level turning (on the Boston, but I think we'd be seeing roughly the same thing with the P-61)

Fighting Manoeuvres
Trials were carried out against a Hurricane I, Hurricane II and Spitfire I at altitudes up to 6,000 feet. The Boston, which was fitted with flame dampers, carried a full service load of 3 crew, ammunition and radio equipment, but no bomb load ... The Boston can almost out-turn a Hurricane when using 15 - 30 of flap, making it impossible for the fighter to bring his sights to bear. If, however, the fighter breaks away and commences a new attack, the Boston then becomes a comparatively easy target ...
- AFDU

And that pretty much sums it up regarding twin v's single.

 

[GregP]

I've spoken with people who flew the P-61 and liked it. It wasn't much good at intercepting fast aircraft, but was just fine when intercepting sub-330 mph targets. Just to be accurate, these guys were post-WWII guys. I can easily imagine the P-61 was less developed when it first came out.

The guys I spoke with liked the way it handled and turned, and had nothing but praise for the engines. They were less happy with the propellers and some of the other systems. early radars weren't exactly the peak of reliability, and some of the flight systems were less than wonderful, too. But, overall the guys I talked with liked it for the short time they flew it. I seem to recall they flew it only for about 10 months for one guy and about a year for the other.

One of them transitioned into the F3D Skynight, and it's radar wasn't much better, at least at first. Later, it got better. They got even better when they were adapted for electronic warfare, and managed to get into Viet Nam, though very few were actually deployed there.

 

[gruad]

I read that the original design of the P-61 was based on defending against the London night Blitz. The airplane could put down its flaps and cruise over London all night. But when Japanese bombers were hitting Saipan at night the P-61's were found to be inadequate and had to be replaced by F6F night fighters, The question is, why could the P-61's not hang around at altitude and wait for the bombers to show up. Admittedly the original zap flaps were not adopted in the production models, so perhaps the P-61 could not hang some drop tanks on, pull back the throttles, and stooge around all night.

Surely the problem was that Northrop built a plane to a British specification. So they observed the blitz and then they got the idea as a night fighter as a thing for shooting down bombers.

By the time the p61 arrived the war had changed and there was no longer a need to shoot down bombers over home territory.
What was needed in 1944 was an intruder hence the decision to remove the four upper 50s

Let's imagine the Luftwaffe had been given p61's at the time they arrived they would have been able to wreak havoc amongst RAF bombers.

 

[GrauGeist]

Northrop built the P-61 to the USAAF's specification based on the needs of the British at the time of inception.

 

[MIflyer]

There was a P-61 test pilot who said that with a P-61 equipped with a top turret and an experienced crew he could beat any four non-jet WWII fighters. With the three man crew all calling out where the adversaries were and the gunner rotating the turret to face threats, he could defeat a whole flight. He did enough hassling with other fighters to know something.

Of course the C model had turbos and that made it a 400 MPH plus airplane. Think F6F compared to P-47.

I think the biggest deficiency the P-61 had in the Pacific was that it did not have that much range. It seems that they would have loved to deploy it on intruder missions over enemy airfields but they were mostly too far away. The P-38M had higher performance but they concluded that the crew was so cramped that they were limited in their ability to scan the skies.

Anyone ever read any first personal accounts of that P-38F they converted to a two seat night fighter for use at Guadalcanal? Wonderful idea, but I've never read any details of its use.

 

[gruad]

Northrop built the P-61 to the USAAF's specification based on the needs of the British at the time of inception.

Again a lot of people think that night bombers have no defence in the belly position.

But Lancasters and the like were fitted with a modification to H2S which is called Fish Pond this was operated by the wireless operator. So there's a scanning radar for scans below and looks for the planes below which show up and the idea is that if the planet moves the plane and the plane below moves with him then he can get an idea that it is actually a night fighter.

But I absolutely agree had the Luftwaffe had the P61 with upward firing turret. It would have actually smashed our bombers out of the sky.

 

[Erich]

the Widow seemed to be an excellent night ground attack platform, the 110G not. The ETO US units flying the P-61 more times than not had the upper .50 turret removed due to buffeting and with 4 20mm that was enough killing power.

 

[PAT303]

I do believe that when Northrop got the original specification the p61 was supposed to be a bomber interceptor.

So the original 4 50s on a turret mounted above would have made sense at the time for carrying out bomber interceptions

AKA Schrake Musik Which the Germans actually developed as we know

Open to any discussions on this Thanks guys

The upward firing guns were developed by the British in WW1 as a way to attack airships

 

[PAT303]

There was a P-61 test pilot who said that with a P-61 equipped with a top turret and an experienced crew he could beat any four non-jet WWII fighters. With the three man crew all calling out where the adversaries were and the gunner rotating the turret to face threats, he could defeat a whole flight. He did enough hassling with other fighters to know something

So a lone P61 could beat four MkXIV Spitfires or four Tempest II's attacking it simultaneously?, I don't think so.

 

[Erich]

a test pilot, eh ? what nonsense..........

 

[BiffF15]

It was only an opinion...

 

[33k in the air]

Again a lot of people think that night bombers have no defence in the belly position.

But Lancasters and the like were fitted with a modification to H2S which is called Fish Pond this was operated by the wireless operator. So there's a scanning radar for scans below and looks for the planes below which show up and the idea is that if the planet moves the plane and the plane below moves with him then he can get an idea that it is actually a night fighter.

Some Halifaxes and Lancasters had the Preston-Green .50-cal ventral turret installed.

 

[EwenS]

the Widow seemed to be an excellent night ground attack platform, the 110G not. The ETO US units flying the P-61 more times than not had the upper .50 turret removed due to buffeting and with 4 20mm that was enough killing power.

The turret on the P-61 was removed from on the production line during the P-61A-1 production run (only the first 37 of the 45 in that block received it). Most of those went to the Pacific. It was not reinstated until the P-61B-15 production run (the 401st production aircraft). While the primary reason for the removal of the turret was buffeting, a secondary reason was that the B-29 had priority for them.

The first deliveries to the ETO were P-61A-5, so they were delivered to the ETO without turrets. It would have probably been 1945 before the turreted B-15 began to appear in the ETO.

 

[Geoffrey Sinclair]

The thing to note about the P-61B block numbers is they are not linearly ascending with serial number and at times Northrop seems to have taken a vow that every or every second P-61 off the line will be from a different block than its predecessor.

42-29398 to 29497 are a mixture of P-61B block 1 and 2. 42-39501 to 39547 the block 6, 42-39548 to 39572 the first block 10, 42-39573 to 39611 the first block 15, 42-39612 back to block 10, but 42-39613 is a block 25. Then 42-39614 to 39757 are a mixture of blocks 10, 15 and 16 (Only 6 of the latter), with the last block 10 being 42-39667. 43-8231 to 8236 are block 25, while 43-8237 to 8320 are block 20.

So in serial number and basic acceptance date terms the first P-61B-10 was the 151st P-61B built, after 2 XP-61, 13 YP-61 and 200 P-61A. The earliest acceptance date of a P-61B-10 being 12 October 1944.

The 9th Air Force indicates none of its P-61 used 0.50 inch machine guns.

Rockets on Target 273, Jettisoned 2
20mm expended 167,933 rounds, 20mm rounds lost 8,805
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 1000 GP HE, number dropped 6
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 GP HE, number dropped 14
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 1100 FB Incendiary, number dropped 13, number jettisoned 1
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 750 FB Incendiary, number dropped 44
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 FB Incendiary, number dropped 16, number jettisoned 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 IB Incendiary, number dropped 79, number jettisoned 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 280 FB Incendiary, number dropped 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 250 IB Incendiary, number dropped 2

First sorties in July 1944, for war 2,919 total sorties, 2,837 credit, 2,735 effective (10 weather, 2 personnel, 151 mechanical and 11 other reasons aborts) 54.43 tons of bombs on target, 9 P-61 MIA and 9 Category E on operations, air to air claims for 50 destroyed, 5 probable and 6 damaged.

 

[MIflyer]

For the P-61's in the Pacific the turret was sometimes replaced with a large partially internal ferry tank.

In the ETO the 425th NFS decided to move the RO from the seat aft of the wing to what was supposed to be the gunner seat behind the pilot and relocated the radar display to up front. This moved the CG 15 inches forward and reduced the angle of attack required in cruise flight, which increased the speed of the airplane.

The 7th Air Force installed four fixed forward firing .50 cal guns in the place of the missing turret. The guns apparently had the ability to pivot upwards, Jazz Music style.

 

[33k in the air]

Rockets on Target 273, Jettisoned 2
20mm expended 167,933 rounds, 20mm rounds lost 8,805
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 1000 GP HE, number dropped 6
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 GP HE, number dropped 14
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 1100 FB Incendiary, number dropped 13, number jettisoned 1
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 750 FB Incendiary, number dropped 44
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 FB Incendiary, number dropped 16, number jettisoned 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 500 IB Incendiary, number dropped 79, number jettisoned 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 280 FB Incendiary, number dropped 2
Bomb weight pounds, type and class 250 IB Incendiary, number dropped 2

Just as a point of clarification for anyone not familiar with the terminology, 'FB' is fire bomb, a drop tank filled with napalm with an attached igniter. Below is the approximate translation between weight of fire bomb and the drop tank size.

1,100 lb FB = 165 gallon drop tank
1,000 lb FB = 150 gallon drop tank
0,750 lb FB = 108 gallon drop tank
0,500 lb FB = 075 gallon drop tank
0,350 lb FB = 054 gallon drop tank
0,300 lb FB = 045 gallon drop tank
0,280 lb FB = 042 gallon drop tank

If I recall correctly, the last was made from captured German drop tanks.